Charles Darwin and his wife Emma were a bit of an odd couple in a spiritual sense. Spiritually speaking, Charles withered like a plant while his wife Emma grew like a tall and vibrant tree. Perhaps nowhere is this more evident than in their views on suffering.

In 1866 Charles wrote the following about suffering: “It has always appeared to me more satisfactory to look at the immense amount of pain and suffering in this world as the inevitable result of natural sequence of events, i.e., general laws, rather than from the direct intervention of God.” This quote evidences that Darwin fell prey to the atheist trap of thinking that if God is all knowing, all good, and all powerful, then why is there so much suffering in the world? Interestingly the correct answer to the question of suffering was right in front of him. His wife Emma held the answer. Here is what she said about suffering: “I find the only relief to my own mind is to take it as from God’s hand, and to try to believe that all suffering and illness is meant to help us to exalt our minds and to look forward with hope to a future state.” She is saying that suffering is a refiner's fire that proves us worthy of exaltation by testing our diligence. How different were their views!

Their spiritual differences were also manifested in their choice of literature. Emma enjoyed reading uplifting Christian writings. Darwin, on the other hand, enjoyed books with agnostic leanings. On one occasion in 1869 while the young American writer Henry James visited their home for lunch, he observed Emma reading Fervent Prayer while Darwin read The Index. The Index was “a newspaper produced by a group of disaffected American Unitarians and philosophical unbelievers” who rejected the “authority of the Bible, Church, or Christ.” Darwin was a regular contributor to the newspaper and shared its humanist doctrines with his family, occasionally becoming “indignant with anyone who doubted their complete accuracy.” Poor Emma. Darwin's spiritual emptiness was difficult for Emma. Before marrying Charles, Emma spoke openly about her concern with the spiritual void that existed between them. To her disappointment, that spiritual void still existed later on in life. Because of his resolute agnosticism she was unable to share her religious beliefs of faith, hope, and peace with Charles.

Emma remained steadfast in the faith through good and bad times while her husband wavered. She tried to build up her children’s faith while her husband challenged it. Science heaps praise upon Charles. I am heaping praise upon Emma. If the most important work we do is within the walls of our own homes, then she deserves credit for raising her children in righteousness and teaching them to honor and fear God – the most important accomplishment in any era.

<a href="http://www.believeallthings.com/2845/charles-darwin/">Charles Darwin</a> was certainly an interesting man. Once "gradualism" is accepted and life's purposes understood in terms of chance, it is easy to see to where that leads.

Great article. I had never read anything about Darwin's wife Emma. Thanks for this.

Reply

john willis

10/7/2011 10:31:43

I would recomend that you order from netfilx or purchase the dvd of the movie "Creation".

It came out a couple of years ago and didn't get the wide release it deserved.

I gives a good portrayal of the relationship between Emma and Charles (who were first cousins by the way)Emma was played by Jenifier Connely and her husband played Charles. (I don't know if Emma was as hot as Jenifier Connely in real life)

The movie makes the case that the death of their eight year old daughter was a bigger factor in Charle's loss of faith than his discovery of the theory of natural selection.

The book by Randall Keynes "Darwin's Box" and Janet Brown's biography of Darwin make the same point.

It appears that none of Charles and Emma's children were particualry religious in their adult life though a number had distinquished political and scientific carrers.

Reply

Dave C.

10/8/2011 09:32:06

Believeallthings,

I am glad that you found the post interesting.

John,

I need to see that movie. I agree that his inability to make sense of the death of his daughter contributed to the loss of his faith. If only he had followed the example of Emma.

Darwin is a classic case of someone who could not reconcile suffering with the existence of an all powerful and all loving God. "If God is so powerful and loving, then why did he not intervene to save my precious child?" Evolution by natural selection gave him the intellectual justification to downplay God in his life.

Reply

Aaron

10/10/2011 07:10:25

Do we really believe that God causes suffering? Is that really part of our theology? Do we really believe that God is all powerful? Is that part of our theology? Charles may be faulted for finding God absent, but is Emma to be praised for finding God all too present?Yes, how we deal with suffering and pain and evil can help us grow, but your argument seems designed more to put down Darwin than to illuminate anything else. The 19th century presented the religious and non-religious alike with a great struggle with new scientific ideas. Most Mormons have accepted these new ideas and have not lost their faith. I don't see why we have to go back and put down Darwin because he had difficulties. Just like our faith, evolution and natural selection stand on their own. Scapegoating Darwin does nothing to alter his discoveries.

Reply

Dave C.

10/10/2011 10:19:23

Aaron,

Does God cause suffering?
- Not usually. Humankind's agency and telestial existence in a mortal world provide enough suffering.

So many people lionize Darwin. The BYU biology department even had a big celebration a couple of years ago where Darwin was put up there on a pedestal with Joseph Smith and Abraham Lincoln. I am putting a damper on the celebrations.

Darwin was a great naturalist and a brilliant man for coming up with natural selection. However, he was very conflicted spiritually. Moreover, his own scientific work contributed to his spiritual conflict. Like Darwin, so many other people have lost their faith, and evolution has been the catalyst.

So am I saying that people should not study evolution? Not at all. Evolution is a brilliant theory and I recommend it to anyone - anyone who hearkens unto the word of God while becoming learned in said theory.

Reply

Dusty

10/16/2011 13:01:16

I think you’ll find that members of the church who are bonafide world-renowned experts on Darwin (and evolution) have a different view than the one put forth here.

See this weekly BYU Forum/Devotional address (BYU-TV video), "Charles Darwin and the Tree of Life: Some Assembly Required" by Michael F. Whiting, http://byutv.org/watch/27a9456f-f01d-4dd6-b9e2-23ee399517ab#ooid=RrYjFqMTrqd_u1WYpah2ar8diYbI0K8o

Also, see the Many Faces of Darwin talk by Daniel J. Fairbanks, http://brandonroberg.blogspot.com/2009/02/charles-darwin-bicentennial-week-at-byu.html. (Couldn’t find the full video length version, but have seen it before on-line — here are some snippets.)

From Darwin’s ‘Origin', "I see no good reason why the views given in this volume should shock the religious feelings of any one. It is satisfactory, as showing how transient such impressions are, to remember that the greatest discovery ever made by man, namely, the law of the attraction of gravity, was also attacked by Leibnitz, as subversive of natural, and inferentially of revealed, religion.' A celebrated author and divine has written to me that she had gradually learnt to see that it is just as noble a conception of the Deity to believe that He created a few original forms capable of self-development into other and needful forms, as to believe that He required a fresh act of creation to supply the voids caused by the action of His laws'. [XLIX, 239]”

And the last sentence in editions 2 − 6 of Origin - it says, "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved (XLIX, 243).”

Those thoughts reflect the feelings of a man who tossed his theory in his head for over 20 years before he decided to publish it. There’s nothing of atheism, as you claim, in those sentiments.

And really, who cares if he was conflicted spiritually towards the end of his life? What is your point? As the other poster said, this had more to do with the death of his daughter Annie than anything else (I don’t think his church taught anything about the eternal nature of the family, I may be wrong).

People across the world have their own rituals and beliefs. It may not be the same for all people. Famous scientist Charles Darwin and his Emma Darwin are entirely different in their spiritual sense and spiritual speaking. In my opinion it is a persons right believe in his own beliefs.